Student Body Meets to Discuss Sexual Assault Policy

by Joe Lazauskas

Thursday April 5, 2007

Enticed by the promise of free donuts, coffee, and the chance for change, the Sarah Lawrence student body met for the first time in the 2006-2007 academic yaer on Wednesday, March 7, 2007 at 7:30pm to discuss a topic of great recent controversy: the Sarah Lawrence Sexual Assault Policy.

Student Council co-chairs Megan Smith and Dylan Morgan moderated the meeting along with FLUX co-chairs Dani Young and Michelle Lewin. In recent weeks, FLUX has been campaigning to rewrite the Sarah Lawrence Sexual Assault Policy, and thsi student body meeting marked hte first milestone towards updating the policy, which FLUX feels is laden with outdated and heterosexist language.

The meeting was open to all Sarah Lawrence students and thirty-nine students attended; Dean of Student Affairs Mary Spellman and Assistant Dean of Student Affairs Ken Schneck were also present. The meeting opened with a discussion of what the students liked and disliked about the current policy: the policy’s heterosexist language, such as the use of the word “sodomy” and defining rape as “forced penile-vaginal intercourse” were among the students’ biggest concerns. Several students also disagreed with how the language of the policy was perpetrator-based and not victim-based, and the limited counseling options offered to sexual assault victims. Sarah Lawrence does not currently employ a therapist who specializes in sexual assault. The discussion was largely critical as no positive comments about the current policy were expressed.

The students then reviewed Antioch’s Sexual Offense Prevention Policy (SOPP) as a potential guide for Sarah Lawrence’s updated Sexual Assault Policy. Due to the efforts of Womyn of Antioch, Antioch’s feminist group, Antioch implemented its SOPP in October 2005 and is viewed by many as a model for progressive, sex-positive policies, encouraging an open, safe environment for consensual sex. In addition, the SOPP allows for several levels of action. Placing a strong emphasis on education of what is sexually appropriate, the SOPP allows for educational steps to be taken even when legal charges are not filed. In addition, it allows for anonymous complaints, which, according to the policy, “may take the form of fixing a door lock, offering additional training for a specific group and/or issuing a campus-wide alert.”

While the students approved of these aspects of the SOPP, in addition to its strict definition of consent and victim-centered language, there were also clauses the students did not approve of, such as the policy’s strict adherence to verbal consent and some language in the policy that seemed legally questionable. The meeting concluded with closing remarks by Ken Schneck, Mary Spellman, and the co-chairs of FLUX, Young and Lewin.

For both FLUX and the Student Council, the meeting was the beginning of something greater. As Mary Spellman noted at the meeting, the Sexual Assault Policy cannot be rewritten this semester because of the complex process entailed in changing such an important document and the impending transfer of school presidency from Michelle Meyers to Karen Lawrence; however, the student body was an important first step in identifying what the students want in a new policy. For the Student Council, this meeting was hopefully the first of several to come in the latter half of the semester in order to discuss other issues pertinent to the student body.